If ABL numbers are not counted, I drop Nat Williams and add one of TSpoon, Sales, Taj, and Catchings, all very hard to keep off of this list. Ticha gets the nod largely in part because of her dominance in the assist column for so long combined with the fact that she won a championship.

Keesha being an All-Star for basically 8 years in a row is amazing. Catch's impact in half the decade is awesome, but just not enough yet. Taj has just been so consistently good aside from the pregnancy year, but just not good enough. TSpoon's "the shot", defense, assists, and early impact as well as name recognition is awesome, but while Ticha had a title to trump her lack of offense, TSpoon unfortunately doesn't.

_________________In a world full of people only some want to fly, isn't that crazy?

I picked Weatherspoon & Staley because they're well known names, As good as Catchings & Holdslcaw are, I don't think either deserve to be on the list. A tough decision overall. Whoever makes the final list well deserves it. Can you imagine the tough decision when the league reaches 50 and we'll have to chose the top 50 players of the past 50 years. YIKES!!

Have you ever looked at he stats? Points, boards, blocks? She was one of the very few post players who could play a lick of defense and she could always seem to shut down Tina Thompson and Lisa Leslie on a regular basis. She would still be plaiing another 2-3 seasons if she didn't have all those acl injuries.

_________________"If I'm playing confidently, there's really, in my eyes... nothing I can't do. So I think if anything, for me, in the game of basketball, it's me versus the game."
- Sue Bird

You just can't leave Weatherspoon out. You. Just. Can't.
And she won't be left out. Bet the farm on that one.
I am with MT on every single pick.

Shouldn't even be a question. Ticha and Spoon make it over any other point guards on the list. It's the all-decade team. Move on and pick the next 8 players. I mean, come on...Spoon had the city on lock while she was here. That alone should be enough.

How can you not have the top 2 assist leaders on the list? Then look at rebounds (from the point guard position at that), steals, defense, minutes played, playoff performance and leadership and tell me you can seriously make a case for anyone above them.

My thing is, no point guard should make the all-decade team ahead of her or Spoon regardless. I'm not saying pick 2 at every position...just that those 2 are the only point guards I'd have on the all-decade team.

I tried to refrain from picking younger players because I think that in order to be on an All-Decade team a player should have played at least half of the decade, in my opinion, although I made an exception for Jackson because, well, because I'm not completely stupid!!

I tried to refrain from picking younger players because I think that in order to be on an All-Decade team a player should have played at least half of the decade, in my opinion, although I made an exception for Jackson because, well, because I'm not completely stupid!!

I agree with that. And I especially don't like it when people count Taurasi in, she's played two years and while she's carried her team, hasn't carried them far enough to even the playoffs. Not to take anything away from Taurasi, great player, but she's one of the ones I just don't think should be on the team.

I tried to refrain from picking younger players because I think that in order to be on an All-Decade team a player should have played at least half of the decade, in my opinion, although I made an exception for Jackson because, well, because I'm not completely stupid!!

I agree with that. And I especially don't like it when people count Taurasi in, she's played two years and while she's carried her team, hasn't carried them far enough to even the playoffs. Not to take anything away from Taurasi, great player, but she's one of the ones I just don't think should be on the team.

Right, although I am a fan of Taurasi, I think that she should not be on the All-Decade team, I can see her on the nominations of 30 but not on the actual team, not yet. Although even on the nominations I can think of others who I feel should have been there.

Anyone who votes for Bird & Taurasi needs to realize who started this league and why it's still around.

As for leaving Natalie Williams out, I'd take her over Holdsclaw just because Chamique isn't the all around player Nat was. Natalie was a dominant defensive post as well as a TEAM leader, not an individual "me, me, me" player like Mique'-depression problems or not.

_________________"If I'm playing confidently, there's really, in my eyes... nothing I can't do. So I think if anything, for me, in the game of basketball, it's me versus the game."
- Sue Bird

[quote="CamrnCrz1974"][quote="timber"]Now had we been blessed with Spoon, Kym and Sue in their younger years to run with VJ, we'd have been set with a couple of rings and then we could make a comparison.[/quote]

Don't pull that age stuff with me. :lol: We had Timms and Gillom. Gillom wasn't called Grandmama for the cookies she was baking.[/quote]

Didn't you also have Cheryl Miller and Nancy Lieberman for a season too?

Over their careers, they have very similar scoring and rebounding numbers. LJ's team has had more success - two No. 1 draft picks and real coach will do that for you - but Catchings is much better at defense and has much better assist numbers.

Like I have said earlier, this is a decade-long award, not a season award. Over the course of their careers, there is very little little difference in scoring (1 point) or rebounding (.1 rebound). Other facets of the game, there is a huge difference, but ones that pretty much even out.

Not saying LJ isn't deserving, but don't see her being obviously more deserving as plenty here are saying.

In terms of totals, Lauren has scored more points, played in more seasons, has an MVP, a championship, a significantly higher field goal percentage, especially as of late, more blocks, and more general success.

Tamika has higher rebounds per game, more assists, more steals, a DPOY award, a ROY award, more turnovers, and more 3 pointers.

I mean, I think there's at very least a really strong case for Lauren being better than Tamika, and it is definitely one I am buying into. Jackson has had a better career over 5 years than Tamika.

Like I have said earlier, this is a decade-long award, not a season award. Over the course of their careers, there is very little little difference in scoring (1 point) or rebounding (.1 rebound). Other facets of the game, there is a huge difference, but ones that pretty much even out.

Not saying LJ isn't deserving, but don't see her being obviously more deserving as plenty here are saying.

LJ could have won the ROY, but she had a higher bar to leap coming in than did Stiles. Stiles was a college standout, but LJ was billed as the greatest player in the world...she was expected to come to the worst team in the league and make them a contender...not merely add 4 wins while averaging 15p/6r/2b per game. As far as consistency...what does winning the ROY have to do with consistency?

I love Catch too. I have since she played Robin to Mique's Batman during her freshman year at UT. I just think it's really hard to put her over a player who is the main reason her team won a WNBA championship and has virtually been an MVP or MVP runner-up almost every season she has been in the league. She only finished behind two women who go by the names of Leslie and Swoopes over the past two years.

I know. She was pretty much on everyone else's list, but the consensus was clear. The big four and WNBA originals (Cooper, Leslie, Weatherspoon & Swoopes) are to be there. They left their mark over the last ten years (post and regular season).

I love Catch too. I have since she played Robin to Mique's Batman during her freshman year at UT. I just think it's really hard to put her over a player who is the main reason her team won a WNBA championship and has virtually been an MVP or MVP runner-up almost every season she has been in the league. She only finished behind two women who go by the names of Leslie and Swoopes over the past two years.

Catch did not lose at to Stiles. She won ROY. She has been the main reason the Fever have won all the games they have. She has also virtually been an MVP or runner-up almost every season she has been been in the league. Seattle getting another #1 pick helped win their title.

Catch has done more to promote the league (on her own) than Jackson. Point, set and match to Tamika!

_________________"Preparing our youth to catch
their dreams one star at a time."

Catch did not lose at to Stiles. She won ROY. She has been the main reason the Fever have won all the games they have. She has also virtually been an MVP or runner-up almost every season she has been been in the league. Seattle getting another #1 pick helped win their title.

Catch has done more to promote the league (on her own) than Jackson. Point, set and match to Tamika!

My fault. Tamika was injured during the year she was drafted. We'll just have to wait to see who's named to the team this summer. Then it will be point, set and match.

I love Catch too. I have since she played Robin to Mique's Batman during her freshman year at UT. I just think it's really hard to put her over a player who is the main reason her team won a WNBA championship and has virtually been an MVP or MVP runner-up almost every season she has been in the league. She only finished behind two women who go by the names of Leslie and Swoopes over the past two years.

Catch did not lose at to Stiles. She won ROY. She has been the main reason the Fever have won all the games they have. She has also virtually been an MVP or runner-up almost every season she has been been in the league. Seattle getting another #1 pick helped win their title.

Catch has done more to promote the league (on her own) than Jackson. Point, set and match to Tamika!

Go get a championship and an MVP and keep the FG% over 40 and then maybe I'll think about jumping on board with you...

Go get a championship and an MVP and keep the FG% over 40 and then maybe I'll think about jumping on board with you...

Catch's resume is awesome, Jackson's is better.

From WNBA dot com re: All Decade Team consideration:

"Consideration for the team will be based on ability and on-court performance, leadership, sportsmanship and community service as well as contribution to team success and the growth of women's basketball."

If they are basing some of the consideration on off court stuff, why let the fans vote on it? Like they would know of sportsmanship or stuff like that. Each fan would always be biased on their teams players being "holier than thou" on the court no matter who started what.

_________________"If I'm playing confidently, there's really, in my eyes... nothing I can't do. So I think if anything, for me, in the game of basketball, it's me versus the game."
- Sue Bird

Go get a championship and an MVP and keep the FG% over 40 and then maybe I'll think about jumping on board with you...

Catch's resume is awesome, Jackson's is better.

From WNBA dot com re: All Decade Team consideration:

"Consideration for the team will be based on ability and on-court performance, leadership, sportsmanship and community service as well as contribution to team success and the growth of women's basketball."

Sorry Lauren.

Tamika is out of your league.

Gotta love them both...and suspect Slovy gives Catch the edge on sportsmanship and growth of women's basketball; as they both have ability performance and leadership.

Well, while Catch may do more locally, LJ has done much for the game internationally.

If sportsmanship is truly a criteria, then Lisa Leslie is off the list.
She throws malicious elbows and complains against EVERY single call.

If sportsmanship is truly a criteria, then Lisa Leslie is off the list.
She throws malicious elbows and complains against EVERY single call.

I don't think Lisa Leslie is the only player who has done this. I can think of many, in fact the worst is here in Seattle #15. Come sit courtside and watch how bad she is. She makes Lisa look like an angel!

_________________"If I'm playing confidently, there's really, in my eyes... nothing I can't do. So I think if anything, for me, in the game of basketball, it's me versus the game."
- Sue Bird

i voted for the first time last night, and i gotta say that when you finally do it - pick just 10 players - it's impossible not to leave out someone most worthy.

the only player i really, REALLY have a problem with being on that list of 30 is tamecka dixon. and there are many more players i think deserve to be considered. (how many players overall, since 1997? i'm sure pilight knows. and would 50 be too many - would that be a problem, if the voting still comes down to just 10?)

it's really, really tough voting. and i'm beginning to agree (who was it - queenie?) that perhaps this list should've had only players who had at least five years' impact on the league. the newer players will have their time. if you waived the five-year rule, the player would have to be amazingly phenomenal. we're talking about a sheryl swoopes coming in just last year or something. who would that be?

anyway, on another note, i just love this photo. too bad it would never have been captured during houston's glory years. i'm pretty sure this was shot at a preseason game against the liberty in the garden, a coupla years ago. i remember sitting right across from them and pointing out to my seatmates that the two of these guys were actually joking with each other. who'da thunk it - two aries women not having a bette davis-joan crawford moment.

Yeah, I wanted to vote, too, but I haven't been around long enough. It would end up being my favorites over the past four years, essentially, which wouldn't be right. So I'll defer to the more experienced ones this time.

i voted for the first time last night, and i gotta say that when you finally do it - pick just 10 players - it's impossible not to leave out someone most worthy.

the only player i really, REALLY have a problem with being on that list of 30 is tamecka dixon. and there are many more players i think deserve to be considered. (how many players overall, since 1997? i'm sure pilight knows. and would 50 be too many - would that be a problem, if the voting still comes down to just 10?)

it's really, really tough voting. and i'm beginning to agree (who was it - queenie?) that perhaps this list should've had only players who had at least five years' impact on the league. the newer players will have their time. if you waived the five-year rule, the player would have to be amazingly phenomenal. we're talking about a sheryl swoopes coming in just last year or something. who would that be?

anyway, on another note, i just love this photo. too bad it would never have been captured during houston's glory years. i'm pretty sure this was shot at a preseason game against the liberty in the garden, a coupla years ago. i remember sitting right across from them and pointing out to my seatmates that the two of these guys were actually joking with each other. who'da thunk it - two aries women not having a bette davis-joan crawford moment.

I like that shot, too. Two observations from the guy who made his bones on the topic of the Cooper/Swoopes rivalry. One is how completely quashed it is, at this point, as a historical topic of interest or discussion. I think, honestly, that something has been lost in the failure to fully and honestly tell this story. The whole like it never happened atmosphere. The it was all blown out of proportion bullshit. The complete lack of juicy details. True feelings.

Beyond the absence of just an honest telling of what was a fascinating conflict and drama, why it is a more substantial loss, is because (and this is the second observation) of the incredibly succesful resolution of that drama. That these two were able to overcome their personal conflicts and what they were able to achieve because of that. They overcame their interpersonal dramas on the court and were rewarded on the court for that professionalism. Oh yeah. That's all great. But it's over now, they're no longer teamates, and I contend they will have overcome it a little too well if the story never gets told.

the only player i really, REALLY have a problem with being on that list of 30 is tamecka dixon. and there are many more players i think deserve to be considered. (how many players overall, since 1997? i'm sure pilight knows. and would 50 be too many - would that be a problem, if the voting still comes down to just 10?)

I am not sure why people have a problem with Dixon on the list. A very important part of two championship teams. A gold medal at the Olympics. A 10-year veteran.

She is clearly not going to be on the 10-member team, but how has she accomplished less than say Lobo, either Johnson, Taurasi, and a few others?

I concur Matty. Lobo is one of the more interesting people to think about here.

While it can be argued that Lobo and DT, for name value alone, have more value to the league over fewer years than Dixon, I think that's an inconsiderate slight to what she has accomplished on the court.

Her first year in, she's a starter, and she puts up strong, strong numbers. Sure she has tailed off some, but she's not the first, and she could likely rebound minus injuries and LA drama. She has very good career numbers, and while many find her unlikable, I think you may see a different player now that she is no longer in LaLa land.

I am a proponent of Dixon being on this list. I can't argue with any of the seven who have been around from day 1.

i've already confessed to an "intangibles" bias, if you will. dixon has been a good player - not great, but certainly better than average. but combining all the things (my own personal variables) that make someone worthy of being remembered for this particular honor, dixon don't make my list, if i can have only 30. then there are some who don't meet even all my variables but who must be acknowledged. like mabika. she was far more likeable earlier in her career. but the girl, by far, has had one of the most amazing games to be displayed in this league. i don't think anyone can deny that. i don't care what she has or has not been named to or what her numbers have been (tho i'm sure they're significant). the girl has moves that have not been copied. lobo gets in largely for intangibles that have nothing to do with game. but when you look back at the first 10 years, you have to acknowledge one of the three players on whom the league's hopes were initially pinned (swoopes and leslie being the other two, right?). and just about every kid and their dollies had a lobo jersey. ultimately, some of the non-performance intangibles will count, because the vote is in the public's hands, not unlike the all stars who were or were not worthy. not really meaning to trash her, but dixon is in a middle ground, imo - not wildly talented, not a key historical figure, not hugely popular, not excelling in any category that i can think of . . . in other words, there are a lot of dixons in the league.

all of this, of course, is a frustration that boils down to the fact that we're not happy with a nominations list of just 30 players. that's a wonderful predicament! for the league, anyway.

on some level, i would have wanted the players who are indelible faces of the wnba but who were unsung workhorses. two come to mind: wendy palmer and murriel page. (page, without whom the mystics would've sucked even more than they did all those years. but her work ethic was unmatched.)

Do I need a Shock? They're the only championship team not represented. Cash seems like the obvious choice from that team, but she's only played four years and was hurt for most of one of them. Nolan is a possibility too I guess, although dtsnms would have a fit.

If winning championships is the most important thing, can I leave out Arcain and her four rings? What about Dixon, Mabika, and Milton with two each?

How much do numbers count? I have Holdsclaw, should I also include some other players with limited playoff success and slightly less impressive stats like Katie Smith, Tamika Catchings, or Natalie Williams?

What about players with a little more playoff success but even lesser numbers, like Nykesha Sales, Vickie Johnson, or Jen Gillom?

Should old players get more recognition? Five of the first eight played in the first season. Does it matter that Ruthie Bolton was the league's All Time leading scorer for six days in 1997?

What about Lobo? Do her off court contributions outweigh her injury marred on court career?

Should I be thinking about positions? There are only two guards in the first eight. Should I be looking at Penicheiro or Staley or Stinson or PeeWee or even Bird or Taurasi?

Do I need to worry about East/West balance? Six of my first eight played exclusively for west teams, the other two played for both east and west. Someone quintessentially eastern like Hammon or McWilliams-Franklin might serve to equalize the team a bit.

I am not sure why people have a problem with Dixon on the list. A very important part of two championship teams. A gold medal at the Olympics. A 10-year veteran.

Dixon was a part of the JUNIOR olympic women's team, not the Senior Team that has won all the gold medals. Sure, a gold medal is a gold medal, but it's not the same in a lot of peolples eyes. Taurasi & Bird even stated winning gold 2 years ago was much more of an accomplishment than the ones they won as juniors.

Dixon shouldn't be on the list, period. I would pick Bolton over her any day.

_________________"If I'm playing confidently, there's really, in my eyes... nothing I can't do. So I think if anything, for me, in the game of basketball, it's me versus the game."
- Sue Bird

I'm at a loss as to how someone can justify putting Katie Smith ahead of Chamique Holdsclaw. Claw leads Smith in pretty much every statistical category that doesn't involve shooting threes, including scoring and assists. Claw has played in more than twice as many playoff games as Smith and Claw has actually played for a team that got out of the first round, which Smith has not.

People here don't like Holdsclaw for one reason or another that they can overlook what she's done individually and yet justify selecting someone else for the exact same reasons. Go figure. It can't be basketball-related.
I have a feeling the final list selected by *us* fans, and I use the term loosely, will have a couple of fuck-ups.
Back to the Mavs game.

I'm at a loss as to how someone can justify putting Katie Smith ahead of Chamique Holdsclaw. Claw leads Smith in pretty much every statistical category that doesn't involve shooting threes, including scoring and assists. Claw has played in more than twice as many playoff games as Smith and Claw has actually played for a team that got out of the first round, which Smith has not.

Smith has more wins, total. Although the 2 play different positions, I'd give Katie the edge over Claw. So what if Claws team made it past the first round of the playoffs? You know how many losses the mystics had with her on that team?

_________________"If I'm playing confidently, there's really, in my eyes... nothing I can't do. So I think if anything, for me, in the game of basketball, it's me versus the game."
- Sue Bird

Career stats to back up my comments on Katie Smith VS Chamique Holdsclaw.

SMITH-218 GPlayed-41%FG, 37%3pt, 86%FT, 3.2RPG, 2.4APG, 0.9SPG, 0.2BPG, 2.2TOPG, 2.8PFPG, 17.1 PPG, 3,729 career points(3rd all time in wnba history and she was also the fastest to score 3,000 points).